Yes, it was allowed only in cloistered monasteries. Not sure if they were allowed to chant the actual hours or the words of the Liturgy, as they were not clerics, and only clerics could do that. I’ve been trying to find a definitive answer to this for some time, so far to no avail. Do you perhaps have a good source on the daily prayer cycle of nuns in the middle ages? Or did they chant a non-liturgical cycle of prayers?Perhaps in parishes but in monasteries women have been chanting the Hours for millennia.
That’s patent nonsense. I’m as progressive as you will find and I love Latin. Studied it all through prep school and college.Modernists hate Latin. They want to eradicate it.
Benedictine women who followed the Rule of Saint Benedict would have prayed/chanted the Hours as laid out in the Rule (the Rule contains detailed instructions on how to pray the hours, the psalm order, etc.).Yes, it was allowed only in cloistered monasteries. Not sure if they were allowed to chant the actual hours or the words of the Liturgy, as they were not clerics, and only clerics could do that. I’ve been trying to find a definitive answer to this for some time, so far to no avail. Do you perhaps have a good source on the daily prayer cycle of nuns in the middle ages? Or did they chant a non-liturgical cycle of prayers?
Knock it off with your commands. I’m free to express my opinion that’s solidly based on my personal experience.Knock it off with your silly conspiracy theories.
Actually, Latin is the language of reference and record for all of the particular churches. The authoritative versions of their canons are all in Latin, whatever their liturgical languages are. The working documents they use are all either translated from the Latin, or are translated into Latin, with the Latin, not the original, being the authoritative version.Lastly, Latin is NOT and NEVER has been the universal language of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not just the Roman Catholic Church, it is 24 sui iuris Churches in communion with Rome.
The Greeks were often better at it than the West was. One of my favorite pope stories is about John XII, who fired off an angry letter to Constantinople once. The Byzantine response was to return the letter with all the spelling and grammatical errors circled and corrected in red, like a schoolboys essay. That was classy, as Pope John was a teenager or in his early twenties at the time.Greeks themselves were writing in Latin to preserve the Bible, the Roman Canon, etc.
It was called the “Eastern Roman Empire” for a reason.The Byzantine Greeks would have been very surprised if anyone said they were not Romans.
Thing is, these were all ORGANIC changes, over a long period of time and with much thought. Not all at one council. There’s a difference.I wonder if third century Trads carried on like our modern ones when the traditional language of the Roman Rite (Greek) was replaced by the lowly vernacular (Latin)?
Or when the traditional chant of the Roman Rite (Old Roman Chant) was abandoned in favor of that foreign innovation (Gregorian Chant, which was invented in what are now France, Germany, Switzerland and the Low Countries)?
I wonder whether people pitched a fit when organum, ars nova and polyphony were introduced (all non-Roman inventions)?
I know that letting prepubescent boys sing in the choir in the tenth century met with more than a little disapproval.
As did the ripping down of the chancel screens “in the spirit of the Council” (Trent).
As did allowing lay men to sing in the choir.
And we all know that women singing during the liturgy was considered scandalous by many, and not explicitly allowed until 1954, and then under limited circumstances. They weren’t fully allowed to sing until 1983.
Were people scandalized when boys were first allowed serve mass?
Go check the Ruthenian Recension, promulgated from Rome, and try again . . .Actually, Latin is the language of reference and record for all of the particular churches. The authoritative versions of their canons are all in Latin, whatever their liturgical languages are.
Working copies are in the vernacular, which is not necessarily the same as the liturgical language. But the authoritative versions are all in Latin.The Eastern Churches codes and documents should be in Greek, Church Slavonic, Armenian, Coptic, Aramaic, etc.
That is for the liturgical language, not the language of record. And even that was, as you say, promulgated from Rome.Go check the Ruthenian Recension, promulgated from Rome, and try again . . .
And why would that make any difference? And some of these changes were more sudden than you might think. Pope Gregory the Great’s reshaping of the Mass was not at all “organic”.these were all ORGANIC changes
No there isn’t. At all. Why would you think there would be?Thing is, these were all ORGANIC changes, over a long period of time and with much thought. Not all at one council. There’s a difference.
You say there’s nothing special about Latin but Pope St. John XXIII strongly disagreed with you in Veterum Sapientia.Besides this, there’s certainly nothing special about Latin. Yet, some, these days, speak of it as if it is somehow superior or magical. Those who feel the Second Vatican Council was mistaken in promoting use of the vernacular over Latin must, then, also reject the same premise which gave us the Latin Mass.
Organic = slow, incremental development in response to need. This is much different from creating something from scratch. In other words, one approach is conservative; the other is revolutionary.No there isn’t. At all. Why would you think there would be?
The man @Spyridon is alive and kicking!!! I love it !Any comments folks!
I would call Pope Gregory’s reworking of the Roman Liturgy even more “revolutionary” than what occurred at Vatican II.This is much different from creating something from scratch. In other words, one approach is conservative; the other is revolutionary.